If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jerusalem Post)   Iran is building 16 new nuclear processing plants and announces discovery of large new uranium deposits. Totally for peaceful purposes, of course   (jpost.com) divider line 234
    More: Scary, Atomic Energy Organization, Iran, uranium deposits, uranium enrichment, Danny Ayalon, Caspian Sea, Sea of Oman, mining  
•       •       •

2510 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2013 at 1:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



234 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-23 05:13:52 PM
Israel is like Lucy with the football.

images.wikia.com

Israel  told W. Bush that if Saddam was gone, they would feel secure enough to create a Palistinian state. He saw it as the road to peace. Of course they had no intention. They played that scmuck like a fiddle.

Once we have "regime change" in Iran,(you heard it here first) Israel well want us to go after Putin. They will want the Jewish oligarchs reinstated to control that country's resources again. Their enemies list is endless.
We need to say "enough".
 
2013-02-23 05:14:55 PM

Uncle Tractor: vygramul: It's amazing how many people assume that Israel provides some kind of base for us for imperialism.  Israel doesn't do anything of the sort.

Not on behalf of the US, anyway.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 386x480]


We're really lowering the bar for "imperialism".  Hardly anyone couldn't be accused of it, which renders the term meaningless.

Not that I approve of what's going on there.
 
2013-02-23 05:26:38 PM

Uncle Tractor: Maybe not, but they do care about not being the first country to nuke / irradiate another muslim country. They also care about not irradiating Europe (crazy but not republican crazy).


Yeah because it's not like Iran ever fought any muslim countries or killed any muslims eh ? right  ?
let's give the fundamentalist muslims the benefit of the doubt.

Hey at least you understood the stupidity of your 'they won't fire at Israel because 18%' comment.

Uncle Tractor: It's not as if muslims people slaughtering other muslims people is such a rarity in the past or at this moment in the Middle East anywhere on the planet Earth.

FIFY


Spoken truly like someone who doesn't have a clue about middle-Eastern history. Hell, even current events.
 
2013-02-23 05:30:38 PM
 
2013-02-23 05:34:16 PM

TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: Maybe not, but they do care about not being the first country to nuke / irradiate another muslim country. They also care about not irradiating Europe (crazy but not republican crazy).

Yeah because it's not like Iran ever fought any muslim countries or killed any muslims eh ? right  ?
let's give the fundamentalist muslims the benefit of the doubt.


You do know the difference between fighting the same kind of war the world has seen for the past forever and actually nuking someone, right?

No?

Hey at least you understood the stupidity of your 'they won't fire at Israel because 18%' comment.

...And once again we see that you are incapable of participating in an adult conversation.

Spoken truly like someone who doesn't have a clue about middle-Eastern history. Hell, even current events.

Yes, because wars are only happen in the ME.
 
2013-02-23 05:50:19 PM

Uncle Tractor: You do know the difference between fighting the same kind of war the world has seen for the past forever and actually nuking someone, right?

No?


Keep putting your faith in islamic fundamentalists who had no qualms slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their fellow muslims. Islamic fundamentalists who use proxy terrorist organizations for their 'Jihad' to avoid direct blame.

Sure i know the difference and unlike you i'm not a naive idiot having lived in the middle east for close to 4 decades.

Uncle Tractor: ...And once again we see that you are incapable of participating in an adult conversation.


Judging by your ignorance regarding the 'but they won't hurt other muslims!' i'd say you are incapable of participating in any conversation about this, period.

Uncle Tractor: Yes, because wars are only happen in the ME.


My post was specifically about your stupid comment of 'muslims won't hurt other muslims'. if that wasn't clear enough for you, too bad.
 
2013-02-23 06:09:29 PM
Let them get a bomb.
If they're dumb enough to use it, they'll get what's coming to them.
 
2013-02-23 06:13:26 PM

TappingTheVein: Sure i know the difference and unlike you i'm not a naive idiot having lived in the middle east for close to 4 decades.


You may have lived there, but did you ever actually interact with any of the natives?

Judging by your ignorance regarding the 'but they won't hurt other muslims!' i'd say you are incapable of participating in any conversation about this, period.

My post was specifically about your stupid comment of 'muslims won't hurt other muslims'. if that wasn't clear enough for you, too bad.


i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-23 06:27:09 PM

Uncle Tractor: You may have lived there, but did you ever actually interact with any of the natives?


If that's a serious question than you're either a troll or a bigger idiot than i thought.

Uncle Tractor:  [i560.photobucket.com image 500x357]

You seem to be having a difficult time accepting the fact that your claim about 'muslims won't hurt other muslims' was retarded. Is that some sort of denial mechanism ?
 
2013-02-23 06:32:53 PM

Uncle Tractor: TappingTheVein: Sure i know the difference and unlike you i'm not a naive idiot having lived in the middle east for close to 4 decades.

You may have lived there, but did you ever actually interact with any of the natives?

Judging by your ignorance regarding the 'but they won't hurt other muslims!' i'd say you are incapable of participating in any conversation about this, period.

My post was specifically about your stupid comment of 'muslims won't hurt other muslims'. if that wasn't clear enough for you, too bad.

[i560.photobucket.com image 500x357]


They may well be but you don't seem to be one of them.  I might suggest you look up Mali or specifically Timbuktu.   A glaring recent example of Muslims (fundies) v. Muslims (moderates)
 
2013-02-23 06:44:34 PM

Uncle Tractor: vygramul: We're really lowering the bar for "imperialism".

the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas;broadly: the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence<unionimperialism>

Hardly anyone couldn't be accused of it, which renders the term meaningless.

Eh, what?


There aren't a lot of countries that haven't been guilty of that in the last 200 years.
 
2013-02-23 07:22:38 PM

GAT_00: b2theory: GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.

You're forgetting that Israel is not Iran's principle enemy in the region. Will you think it's a great idea when Saudi Arabia starts building a bomb?

Then you would not only have a balance against Israel, but you'd have a parity among the Muslim sects.

Nukes make war less likely, not more. When a fight over a piece of land can lead to total annihilation, you wonder a lot more if that land is worth it.


"Well it must be worth it if you are going to such lengths to keep us from it!"
 
2013-02-23 08:09:56 PM

indarwinsshadow: I know this isn't going to be popular, but, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. They have the right to process nuclear material to make weapons and finally, America is the only country on the entire planet that's used nukes in anger against another country. I'm not saying we should be happy but, Russia has nukes, and it's not like they're friendly towards the west, China has nukes and again they're not fans of us, and finally North Korea has nukes. Iran isn't in the business of making us happy. They're in the nuclear war business. If America has them, and by their track record they're more of a threat to the world than Iran is, then most countries also have the right to possess nukes. It's just the way it is.

Yep, it's not going to sit well with a lot of Americans.


Of course.... we have the right to not do business with them. We also have the right to pressure our trade partners to cut ties with them. We have the right to exclude them from the international banking system and freeze their assets they put in our banks.

Iran may be forced to decide if they want an economy or nuclear weapons.

It isn't a good thing that the world has nuclear weapons. It is worse if they spread. We can/should do something to stop that. Otherwise I agree with you.
 
2013-02-23 09:47:56 PM

GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more. When a fight over a piece of land can lead to total annihilation, you wonder a lot more if that land is worth it.


Your assumption depends on the first key prerequisite of Mutually Assured Destruction being fulfilled - that people who are sane and rational are in control of a nuclear weapon in the first place. 

The danger of a Nuclear WEAPON armed Iran is not that they scare the Israelis or upsets the balance of power, it's that they don't fulfill that prerequisite. Even a place like North Korea, for all it's posturing, doesn't have a religious cabal which is well known for supporting ideological and religious terrorism through deniable sources in neighboring countries in charge.

Secular Governments typically don't believe that God wants them to purge the non-believers from the face of the earth, or if they do, they have checks and balances in place to ensure the person who says it's God's will is kept in check.
 
2013-02-23 09:52:52 PM

BronyMedic: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more. When a fight over a piece of land can lead to total annihilation, you wonder a lot more if that land is worth it.

Your assumption depends on the first key prerequisite of Mutually Assured Destruction being fulfilled - that people who are sane and rational are in control of a nuclear weapon in the first place. 

The danger of a Nuclear WEAPON armed Iran is not that they scare the Israelis or upsets the balance of power, it's that they don't fulfill that prerequisite. Even a place like North Korea, for all it's posturing, doesn't have a religious cabal which is well known for supporting ideological and religious terrorism through deniable sources in neighboring countries in charge.

Secular Governments typically don't believe that God wants them to purge the non-believers from the face of the earth, or if they do, they have checks and balances in place to ensure the person who says it's God's will is kept in check.


Pakistan and India have nukes, if you want to be worried about nukes, worry about Pakistan.  Iran is an easy decade away... They still haven't got enrichment up to speed...
 
2013-02-23 09:58:41 PM

dragonchild: George Babbitt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

Try reading your own citations.  The "suitcase nuke" is a term popularized by corporate media wanting to sell a scare.  The weapons are technically small enough to fit in a suitcase -- a BIG suitcase -- but they are still extremely heavy.  The bare warhead -- with no deployment technology whatsoever -- weighs 50 pounds and had a yield of 0.2kt.  Tack what you'd need to actually deploy the thing and it goes up to 100 pounds -- not exactly your typical carry-on, yet not much more destructive than a well-designed car bomb.  It's experimental tech, only first-world nations have them and there are massive downsides in trying to get one.

That's all from your own link BTW.


You didn't read the link very well. It's not experimental tech. It's been around since the 1950s, in the US, with the SADM. And it's quite a bit more destructive than a car bomb, actually. Car bombs have heat, blast wave, and shrapnel. That's it. With a nuclear munition, especially a miniaturized one, you have radiation exposure, radioactive fallout, and radioactive debris to worry about.

It doesn't even have to be an actual nuclear weapon. "Dirty Bombs" worry Emergency Responders and planners so much because  they're easy to make, and it's not hard to obtain mid-level to high level radioactive material. Any hospital or radiation therapy center will have them. Old X-ray machines in dentist and doctors offices as well.

In addition, you have the sheer psychological terror inflicted by a nuclear weapon, of any size, on a public which is ill educated about radiation and it's effects. It wouldn't matter if someone set up a bomb that damaged one building. You'd have tens of thousands of people clogging up the healthcare system in that area, and the emergency response systems out of panic and fear.
 
2013-02-23 10:09:24 PM

BronyMedic: Even a place like North Korea, for all it's posturing, doesn't have a religious cabal which is well known for supporting ideological and religious terrorism through deniable sources in neighboring countries in charge.



Good point.

Israel, OTOH...
 
2013-02-23 10:13:40 PM

Amos Quito: Good point.

Israel, OTOH...


Even Israel, with it's posturing and bad behavior towards the Palestinians, is run by relatively rational people. They're not going to make a first strike with a nuclear weapon.

That's the running trend today with the current geopolitical situation that unites every nuclear-armed country. No one is insane enough to press the button, because they know doing so would mean the end of their country, if not the entirety of humanity itself. In addition, nuclear-armed countries have had 50+ years of experience and near-disasters to open lines of communication and negotiation to avert a nuclear strike from a computer error or terrorist attack. Even India and Pakistan, for all their shared hatred, have this.

The North Koreans basically use theirs for saber rattling and posturing, and end up getting smacked down by the Chinese when they get too uppity.
 
2013-02-23 10:48:26 PM

BronyMedic: Amos Quito: Good point.

Israel, OTOH...

Even Israel, with it's posturing and bad behavior towards the Palestinians, is run by relatively rational people. They're not going to make a first strike with a nuclear weapon.

That's the running trend today with the current geopolitical situation that unites every nuclear-armed country. No one is insane enough to press the button, because they know doing so would mean the end of their country, if not the entirety of humanity itself. In addition, nuclear-armed countries have had 50+ years of experience and near-disasters to open lines of communication and negotiation to avert a nuclear strike from a computer error or terrorist attack. Even India and Pakistan, for all their shared hatred, have this.

The North Koreans basically use theirs for saber rattling and posturing, and end up getting smacked down by the Chinese when they get too uppity.



Are you saying then, that Iran's obtaining nukes might get Israel to stop overtly threatening them?
 
2013-02-23 11:08:15 PM

indarwinsshadow: Amos Quito: Any Pie Left: If they were serious about peaceful nuclear power, they'd choose thorium and the world would have to shut up.

Israel has been doing their best to con the US (or whoever) into BOMBING THE SHIAT out of Iran for over 20 years. The nukes are just their endlessly recycled excuse for age-old blood lust.

The animosity between "Israelites" and "Persians"  goes back thousands of years (see the Biblical book of Esther)

Coincidentally, TODAY begins the Jewish holiday of PURIM, which (coincidentally) commemorates the Jews' victory over PERSIANS that (supposedly) wanted to do them wrong oh so long ago.

Old hatred dies hard - and Israel STILL has a hard-on for Iran.

Purim. Today. Coincidence.

Jews were almost exterminated by fantics in WWII, and face a legitimate threat by Iran. I don't blame them for wanting to protect their people. But tying it to Purim? Dude, break out the tinfoil.


Reminds me of someone

Streicher's was the most melodramatic of the hangings carried out that night. At the bottom of the scaffold he cried out "Heil Hitler!" When he mounted the platform, he delivered his last sneering reference to Jewish scripture, snapping "Purim-Fest 1946!".
 
2013-02-23 11:12:41 PM

Amos Quito: Are you saying then, that Iran's obtaining nukes might get Israel to stop overtly threatening them?


Because that stops Iran and North Korea, to use examples, from threatening the US, and stops China, various tiny Baltic states, and the Chechens from threatening Russia, right?

I'm saying that it's a pretty weak excuse to justify them having the most destructive weapons on the face of the earth in the hands of a group of people who have no secular checks and balances should they decide God suddenly supports Ahmadinajad's crazy banter. Nuclear proliferation is not the answer to international squabbles. Even Israel, despite never officially admitting to it's nuclear weapons stockpile, is of the opinion that it's a  last resort weapon, under the control of a secular government which has multiple checks built into it.

Something that has the potential to spark off the end of humanity on a global should not be treated like a toy you're jealous of the neighbor kid having.
 
2013-02-23 11:47:31 PM

BronyMedic: Amos Quito: Are you saying then, that Iran's obtaining nukes might get Israel to stop overtly threatening them?

Because that stops Iran and North Korea, to use examples, from threatening the US, and stops China, various tiny Baltic states, and the Chechens from threatening Russia, right?

I'm saying that it's a pretty weak excuse to justify them having the most destructive weapons on the face of the earth in the hands of a group of people who have no secular checks and balances should they decide God suddenly supports Ahmadinajad's crazy banter. Nuclear proliferation is not the answer to international squabbles. Even Israel, despite never officially admitting to it's nuclear weapons stockpile, is of the opinion that it's a  last resort weapon, under the control of a secular government which has multiple checks built into it.

Something that has the potential to spark off the end of humanity on a global should not be treated like a toy you're jealous of the neighbor kid having.


Worried about (something) sparking off the end of humanity???

Then perhaps you should read this.


QUOTE:


Some have written about the "Samson Option" as a retaliation strategy. In 2002, the Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece by Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter which Jewish author Ron Rosenbaum writes "goes so far as to justify" a Samson Option approach[27]:

Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow-it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away-unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans-have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?[28]

In 2003, a military historian Martin van Creveld, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[29] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's "The Gun and the Olive Branch" (2003) as saying:

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.[30]

Ron Rosenbaum writes in his 2012 book How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III that in the "aftermath of a second Holocaust" Israel's surviving Dolphin-class nuclear missile submarines would retaliate not only against Israel's attackers, but "bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance)" as well as the "holy places of Islam." He writes that "abandonment of proportionality is the essence" of the Samson Option.[31]

In 2012, in response to Günter Grass's poem "Was gesagt werden muss" ("What Must Be Said") which criticized Israel's nuclear weapons program, Israeli poet and Holocaust survivor Itamar Yaoz-Kest published a poem entitled "The Right to Exist: a Poem-Letter to the German Author" which addresses Grass by name. It contains the line: "If you force us yet again to descend from the face of the Earth to the depths of the Earth - let the Earth roll toward the Nothingness." Jerusalem Post journalist Gil Ronen wrote that this is seen as referring to the Samson Option, which is the strategy floated by Ariel Sharon and others of using Israel's nuclear weapons, possibly damaging the entire world, if Israel faces annihilation.[32]


END QUOTE


You're worried about WHO?


/These asshats are serious
 
2013-02-24 12:50:16 AM
AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Sampson Option?

BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!

Some people will believe Anything!
 
2013-02-24 01:17:58 AM
Amos Quito: The Sampson Option

Even if Israel had the intention of carrying out what it is purported to have planned, it has no ability to do so, technologically or logistically. Israel does not have a strategic delivery platform for it's nuclear weapons - no way to deliver then via an IRBM or ICBM to the countries supposedly targeted outside the middle east. The only weapons they DO have, which they wont admit to, are Air-dropped bombs and short range missiles launched from diesel-electric submarines and F-15E fighter aircraft, which have a combat range of less than 1000 miles with a nuclear loadout.
 
2013-02-24 01:20:01 AM

BronyMedic: Amos Quito: The Sampson Option

Even if Israel had the intention of carrying out what it is purported to have planned, it has no ability to do so, technologically or logistically. Israel does not have a strategic delivery platform for it's nuclear weapons - no way to deliver then via an IRBM or ICBM to the countries supposedly targeted outside the middle east. The only weapons they DO have, which they wont admit to, are Air-dropped bombs and short range missiles launched from diesel-electric submarines and F-15E fighter aircraft, which have a combat range of less than 1000 miles with a nuclear loadout.


I especially like how Moscow will be targeted by the sub.
 
2013-02-24 05:05:35 AM

sno man: I might suggest you look up Mali or specifically Timbuktu.   A glaring recent example of Muslims (fundies) v. Muslims (moderates)


Yeah ... except I didn't say "muslims won't hurt other muslims." That's TTVs strawman. What I said was they wouldn't want to nuke or irradiate muslims. Not the same thing.
 
2013-02-24 05:08:10 AM

TappingTheVein: You seem to be having a difficult time accepting the fact that your claim about 'muslims won't hurt other muslims' was retarded. Is that some sort of denial mechanism ?


You may now link to the post where I made that claim.
 
2013-02-24 05:21:20 AM

Uncle Tractor: Yeah ... except I didn't say "muslims won't hurt other muslims." That's TTVs strawman. What I said was they wouldn't want to nuke or irradiate muslims. Not the same thing.


Except that's not true. Just like Christianity, Islam has various mainstream  sects, and various cults and social movements as well. Many of them hate each other with a glaring passion. In addition, much of the Persian and Arab world is still under tribal divisions. Members of one tribal linage will proudly hate another tribal linage. This, for example is why when one sect, tribe, or family linage - gains power - they tend to be tyrannical and overbearing to the others in a country. See Hussein's Iraq for a great example of this.

Anyone who thinks someone in the Middle East wouldn't bomb or nuke another because they're fellow Muslims is seriously deluded on the state of politics in that area of the world.
 
2013-02-24 05:44:44 AM

BronyMedic: Anyone who thinks someone in the Middle East wouldn't bomb or nuke another because they're fellow Muslims is seriously deluded on the state of politics in that area of the world.


Bomb, yes. That happens every day. Nuke? No. Nukes aren't like most bombs. If they were, Pakistan and India would have swapped nukes years ago.
 
2013-02-24 06:25:57 AM

Uncle Tractor: Bomb, yes. That happens every day. Nuke? No. Nukes aren't like most bombs. If they were, Pakistan and India would have swapped nukes years ago.


India and Pakistan are kept in check by every other nuclear power around them, and they have a long and colorful history of killing each other as well. Their governments are (in the case of Pakistan at least at the moment) relatively secular, and to a point are willing to at least talk things over before one of their border posts shoots up another.

Even in the Middle East proper, the only thing that keeps the Arabs and Persians civil with each other is the fact there's money under those sands, and the foreign influence it can buy.

If you think they wouldn't use weapons of mass destruction on eachother to maintain the status quo of power over there, I'd point over to the Syrians and their posturing with what is the world's largest ACTIVE offensive military stockpile and chemical weapons program.
 
2013-02-24 07:04:00 AM

BronyMedic: If you think they wouldn't use weapons of mass destruction on eachother to maintain the status quo of power over there, I'd point over to the Syrians and their posturing with what is the world's largest ACTIVE offensive military stockpile and chemical weapons program.


Nukes have only been used *twice*, and not at all since WWII. Also, chemical weapons aren't nukes.

BronyMedic: If you think they wouldn't use weapons of mass destruction on eachother to maintain the status quo of power over there, I'd point over to the Syrians and their posturing


They haven't used them yet. When the syrians stop posturing and actually use those WMDs, it'll all be over for them.
I'm not losing any sleep over future iranian nukes and neither should you. It's futile anyway. If the iranians want nukes, they'll have nukes, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
 
2013-02-24 07:26:03 AM

Uncle Tractor: Nukes have only been used *twice*, and not at all since WWII. Also, chemical weapons aren't nukes.


*sigh*

Nukes have only been used twice in human history because it was all it took to demonstrate the horrific power they possessed. In addition, the US was the only nuclear kid on the block for years afterwords. It took the Soviets stealing our tech and reverse engineering it to have their own, and at that point both countries began to play along on the grand scale, while still fighting proxy wars in second and third world countries, because it was the only way they could do so and not cause the extinction of all life on Earth.

Again. You're assuming you're dealing with SANE, RATIONAL people here. Not people who believe that God wants them to kill the nonbelievers, and paradise awaits them for their deeds in the afterlife.

And chemical weapons are considered akin to using a nuclear weapon for the purposes of Russian and United States nuclear doctrine for retaliation. At any rate, they're also considered abhorrent, and their use a crime against humanity.
 
2013-02-24 08:08:25 AM

Uncle Tractor: You may now link to the post where I made that claim.


Sure thing.

If you think muslims will not attack (nuke, bomb, drown, slaughter, etc..) other muslims you are an idiot. Plain and simple.
 
2013-02-24 08:12:41 AM

BronyMedic: Again. You're assuming you're dealing with SANE, RATIONAL people here


And that is exactly the point where Uncle Tractorfails. Like many westerners who know jack shiat about arab middle-eastern mentality.
 
2013-02-24 08:25:08 AM
BronyMedic: Again. You're assuming you're dealing with SANE, RATIONAL people here. Not people who believe that God wants them to kill the nonbelievers, and paradise awaits them for their deeds in the afterlife.

Good things the iranians aren't like that, then. They've held on to power since the revolution, so they can't be completely batshiat crazy.

And chemical weapons are considered akin to using a nuclear weapon for the purposes of Russian and United States nuclear doctrine for retaliation. At any rate, they're also considered abhorrent, and their use a crime against humanity.

As bad as chemical weapons are, they're not on the same level as nukes.
 
2013-02-24 08:29:46 AM
What you claim I said: "You seem to be having a difficult time accepting the fact that your claim about 'muslims won't hurt other muslims' was retarded. Is that some sort of denial mechanism ?"

TappingTheVein:
Uncle Tractor: You may now link to the post where I made that claim.

Sure thing.


"Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim. Not only that, the fallout from a nuke in Israel will almost certainly end up in a muslim country or five ...or maybe in Europe. The iranian leaders might be crazy, but they're notthatcrazy. After all, they've managed to stay in power ever since 1979(?). "

IOW, you're just making shiat up again. Have fun playing with your strawmen.

If you think muslims will not attack (nuke, bomb, drown, slaughter, etc..) other muslims you are an idiot. Plain and simple.

As I've said over and over; I'm talking about nukes. Pretending that I said "muslims won't hurt other muslims" only proves, again, what a dishonest POS you are. This is why talking with you is a waste of time.
 
2013-02-24 08:32:10 AM

TappingTheVein: And that is exactly the point where Uncle Tractorfails. Like many westerners who know jack shiat about arab middle-eastern mentality.


In contrast to you, who just makers shiat up as you go along? I don't care how long you've lived in the ME. Your "knowledge" of the people there sounds like something belched out by some Fox News bimbo.
 
2013-02-24 09:27:20 AM

BronyMedic: You didn't read the link very well. It's not experimental tech. It's been around since the 1950s


That doesn't mean it's not still "experimental".  Both Russia and the U.S. made a few, just to see if they could, but the results weren't anything to write home about, so they didn't get too far past the experiments.

BronyMedic: With a nuclear munition, especially a miniaturized one, you have radiation exposure, radioactive fallout, and radioactive debris to worry about.


For a suitcase bomb?  You really, really don't understand how nuclear weapons work.  Will there be fallout?  Yes, but I'd worry more about smoke inhalation.

BronyMedic: "Dirty Bombs" worry Emergency Responders and planners so much because they're easy to make, and it's not hard to obtain mid-level to high level radioactive material.


Probably because they don't understand physics.  I do.  The worry about a dirty bomb is that 99.99% of the damage will be done by the media.  Oh, radiation poisoning will kill a few people, but the same few would've died if the bomb was a mixture of C-4 and nails because of their proximity to the blast.  It's not like all nukes create this magical cloud of death that has no correlation to blast yield whatsoever.

I mean, hey, if you wanna hide under your bed worried about backpack nukes, go ahead, but if you're gonna spread your fear like a disease then STFU.  You're far more likely to get killed by your own food because of the USDA falling down on the job.
 
2013-02-24 09:43:26 AM

Vectron: Israel told W. Bush that if Saddam was gone, they would feel secure enough to create a Palistinian state. He saw it as the road to peace. Of course they had no intention. They played that scmuck like a fiddle.


Looks like you're the one who got played.
 
2013-02-24 10:16:48 AM

Uncle Tractor: IOW, you're just making shiat up again. Have fun playing with your strawmen.


How does pointing exactly how the basis of your statement is completely wrong 'making shiat up' ?

Uncle Tractor: As I've said over and over; I'm talking about nukes. Pretending that I said "muslims won't hurt other muslims" only proves, again, what a dishonest POS you are. This is why talking with you is a waste of time.


Last time i checked 'nukes' falls into the category of 'hurting'. As i already explained.
As usual you are a naive ignorant Useful Idiot who has no clue what the hell he's talking about.

Uncle Tractor: In contrast to you, who just makers shiat up as you go along?


Oh yes, i made it up that muslims have no problems slaughtering other muslims in any means at their disposal. Especially if they are islamic fundamentalist nutjobs.

Uncle Tractor: Your "knowledge" of the people there sounds like something belched out by some Fox News bimbo.


Typical response of a naive westerner who can't seem tocomprehend that other cultures no not conform to what he perceives as normal and rational.
 
2013-02-24 10:53:37 AM

TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: IOW, you're just making shiat up again. Have fun playing with your strawmen.
How does pointing exactly how the basis of your statement is completely wrong 'making shiat up' ?


In the way that you're still making shiat up.

Last time i checked 'nukes' falls into the category of 'hurting'. As i already explained.
As usual you are a naive ignorant Useful Idiot who has no clue what the hell he's talking about.


Let's see if I can explain it to you: Nuking someone means hurting them (obviously). Hurting someone does not mean nuking them. You already know this, of course, but you're a lying POS so you're probably just going to keep on farking that chicken.

Have fun with that.

/I'd draw you a venn diagram, but you're not worth the effort
 
2013-02-24 11:17:18 AM

Uncle Tractor: In the way that you're still making shiat up.


You, of course, didn't answer the question.
Again: How does pointing exactly how the basis of your statement is completely wrong equals 'making shiat up' ?

Uncle Tractor: Let's see if I can explain it to you: Nuking someone means hurting them (obviously). Hurting someone does not mean nuking them. You already know this, of course, but you're a lying POS so you're probably just going to keep on farking that chicken.


How can you keep ignoring the facts when they are presented to you, very clearly,  that muslims have no problems whatsoever to slaughter each other in the most horrific means at their disposal ?
Is admitting that they do cracks up some of that adorable naiveté ? is admitting that sanity and rationality are not the forte of  islamic fundamentalists nutjobs too stressful for you ?
 
2013-02-24 12:14:10 PM

Uncle Tractor: TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: IOW, you're just making shiat up again. Have fun playing with your strawmen.
How does pointing exactly how the basis of your statement is completely wrong 'making shiat up' ?

In the way that you're still making shiat up.

Last time i checked 'nukes' falls into the category of 'hurting'. As i already explained.
As usual you are a naive ignorant Useful Idiot who has no clue what the hell he's talking about.

Let's see if I can explain it to you: Nuking someone means hurting them (obviously). Hurting someone does not mean nuking them. You already know this, of course, but you're a lying POS so you're probably just going to keep on farking that chicken.

Have fun with that.



Same ol' shiftless Tappy.

Always lying around.
 
2013-02-24 12:21:38 PM

TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: In the way that you're still making shiat up.

You, of course, didn't answer the question.
Again: How does pointing exactly how the basis of your statement is completely wrong equals 'making shiat up' ?


In the way that you've done no such thing.

Uncle Tractor: Let's see if I can explain it to you: Nuking someone means hurting them (obviously). Hurting someone does not mean nuking them. You already know this, of course, but you're a lying POS so you're probably just going to keep on farking that chicken.

How can you keep ignoring the facts when they are presented to you, very clearly,  that muslims have no problems whatsoever to slaughter each other in the most horrific means at their disposal ?


My original claim was that the iranians would not want to nuke Israel because of it's large muslim minority, and because the fallout would go to Europe or other muslim countries.

...Which you use to claim that I've said "muslims won't hurt each other." You're a liar, IOW.

Is admitting that they do cracks up some of that adorable naiveté ? is admitting that sanity and rationality are not the forte of  islamic fundamentalists nutjobs too stressful for you ?

...And now you're moving the goal posts.
 
2013-02-24 12:35:45 PM

BronyMedic: Uncle Tractor: Bomb, yes. That happens every day. Nuke? No. Nukes aren't like most bombs. If they were, Pakistan and India would have swapped nukes years ago.

India and Pakistan are kept in check by every other nuclear power around them,


Any nuclear power with the range to keep India and Pakistan in check also have the range to reach Israel and Iran.
 
2013-02-24 12:38:58 PM

TappingTheVein: BronyMedic: Again. You're assuming you're dealing with SANE, RATIONAL people here

And that is exactly the point where Uncle Tractorfails. Like many westerners who know jack shiat about arab middle-eastern mentality.


There's a lot more rationality than we give people credit for.  That being said, what scares me is not the Osama bin Laden leader-types.  They're actually pretty cowardly.  But if a childless Mullah on his deathbed decides he wants to be remembered for being The One who destroyed Israel (and as bad as the retaliation would be, Islam would still exist, and Israel would not)...
 
2013-02-24 12:42:17 PM

Uncle Tractor: As bad as chemical weapons are, they're not on the same level as nukes.


Chemical weapons are really bad, and are usually considered red-lines for pretty much every nation on the planet.  But you're right - nothing changes the game like a nuke.  It's a whole other plane of human experience, and we really don't know what even a minor nuclear exchange would look like or do to us.  (Hiroshima and Nagasaki are like a firecracker compared to today's grenades.)
 
2013-02-24 12:50:48 PM

Amos Quito: Same ol' shiftless Tappy.

Always lying around.


I can post all your anti-semitic rants, lying bullshiat and "zionists" conspiracy theories but i'll probably crash the Fark server.
Did i ever tell you that i consider your 'zionists are behind JFK's murder' as a favorite of mine ?
 
2013-02-24 01:01:49 PM

Uncle Tractor: In the way that you've done no such thing.


Besides providing proof for my statement, yes you're absolutely right..

Uncle Tractor: My original claim was that the iranians would not want to nuke Israel because of it's large muslim minority


Which, as i explained in detail, is utter bullshiat.

Uncle Tractor: and because the fallout would go to Europe or other muslim countries


You mean other non-shiate muslim countries ? oh i'm sure they can manage.
And you, of course, choose to ignore the parts where i mention how Iran will never use such a weapon themselves.

Uncle Tractor: ...Which you use to claim that I've said "muslims won't hurt each other." You're a liar, IOW.


"Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim. "
-Uncle Tractor

Your evil twin posted that gem ?

Uncle Tractor: ...And now you're moving the goal posts.


How does pointing out how you have no farking clue about the issue equals 'moving the goal posts'?
I only mentioned your lack of understanding of the rationality involved about 3 times now.
 
2013-02-24 03:02:45 PM

TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: ...Which you use to claim that I've said "muslims won't hurt each other." You're a liar, IOW.

"Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim. "


"Iran is not going to nuke Israel because 20% of the israeli population is muslim" is not the same as "muslims won't hurt each other." It never has been and it never will be, and you know it. Bolding it makes no difference.
 
Displayed 50 of 234 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report